[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130221224252.GO1740@moon>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 02:42:52 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Amnon Shiloh <u3557@...o.sublimeip.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, u3557@...lix.com.au,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: prctl(PR_SET_MM)
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:18:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:00:28 +0400
> Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Amnon Shiloh <u3557@...o.sublimeip.com>
> > Subject: prctl: Make PR_SET_MM being depend on own CONFIG_MM_FIELDS_SETTING
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amnon Shiloh <u3557@...o.sublimeip.com>
>
> The "..." makes me sad.
>
> If/when this patch gets sent for real, please explain the reasons?
> AFAICT it permits the enabling of prctl(PR_SET_MM) in
> CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=n kernels. If that was indeed the intent,
> why?
Sorry for this "...", it was a draft version for Amnon, not for inclusion.
As far as I understand Amnon needs these prctl opcodes to be enabled by
default (but still turnable off in Kconfig if needed) for his minimal
c/r software, he do not need the whole c/r functionality (procfs map-files,
get-tid-address,kcmp and such). That is the idea if I understand correctly.
Quoting Amnon
|
| Correct, this is an important feature that is useful for a whole
| general class of applications, not only those needing CHECKPOINT_RESTORE.
|
| Had this not been done as part of the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE project, it
| would have certainly been done, sooner or later, by some other developers:
| it just so happened that the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE people were the first to
| (publically) fill this gap, but in fact this code in "kernel/sys.c" should
| be general kernel code, not part of CHECKPOINT_RESTORE.
|
I personally don't mind if this code become y by default (it requires
cap-sys-resource capability granted anyway), but for normal c/r this
prctl opcodes only is not enough and CHECKPOINT_RESTORE should be set.
Thus, if people agree with enabling prctl extension by default I certainly
won't object.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists